…just busy with real life. Now, in Scientology, I would be ordered to handle my PTPs (Present Time Problems) – it’s considered wrong to let everyday scrabbles get in the way of the Big Picture. Luckily, I’m not a Scientologist, so I’ll deal with what I have to deal with,and be back to blogging soon!
ML,
Caliwog
Posted in Caliwog tech
The Data Series is full of L. Ron Hubbard’s examples that the Wog world in general – and academia, governments, and the military in particular – are stupid and incompetent. Read through the Data Series and you’ll find scores of statements like this one from Data Series 6R:
“The reason I am using [government] intelligence examples is because these are the biggest human data collection ‘professionals’ in the world. The collection and use of data to estimate situations to guide national actions and the data collection by a housewife going shopping are based on the same principles.
— LRH, Data Series 6R, DATA SYSTEMS
Those of us on the outside know why LRH had such a chip on his shoulder about these organizations – because they dared to be critical of him. (If you’re not familiar, read Bare Faced Messiah.) Come on – intelligence services no more sophisticated than a housewife on a shopping run? But wait – Hubbard had facts!
“…A report is considered true or factual only if the source is well thought of… Philby, as a high British intelligence official, was a Russian spy for 30 years. Any data he gave the UK or US was ‘true’ because he was a ‘reliable source.’ He had every Western agent who was being sent into communist areas ‘fingered’ and shot. The West became convinced you could not enter or overthrow communist held areas and stopped trying! Philby was the top authority! He fooled CIA and MI-6 for years!” — LRH
A likely story… until you look into it.
I’m no expert, but if my history is correct, Kim Philby was a communist since around 1930, joined the British Secret Service in 1940, and started working with the CIA in 1949. He was under suspicion by the early 1950s; in fact, CIA asked the British government to fire him in 1951. Philby was, in fact, discharged by the SIS, and though he was later cleared and reinstated, within a few years he was again suspected of being a spy. Philby defected to the Soviet Union in 1963.
To say that Philby had ‘every western agent…fingered and shot” is not true. Hubbard wrote this policy in 1970, right in the midst of the Vietnam War, so clearly, the West had not given up on entering or overthrowing communist-held areas. And to imply that Philby fooled both the British and US governments for the better part of 30 years is a gross oversimplification and a misinterpretation of the truth. Typical Hubbard.
It’s funny – Scientologists often remind us that Hubbard urged his followers to “look for themselves” and find the truth. And yet when you look at what Hubbard presents as facts, they simply don’t hold water.
How can Scientologists insist on taking what Hubbard says as gospel?
ML,
Caliwog
This is one of my favorite bits of L. Ron Hubbard’s administrative “technology:”
“Hard sell means insistence that people buy. It means caring about the person and not being reasonable* about stops or barriers but caring enough to get him through the stops or barriers to get the service that’s going to rehabilitate him.” — LRH, HCO PL 26 Sept 1979, COPYWRITING
* “Reasonable,” in Scientology, has been redefined to mean “accept[ing] reasons why something cannot be done.” It is seen as a bad thing. (Source: Scientology Admin Dictionary)
See what LRH did there? LRH redefined hard sell to be about caring. You don’t hard-sell someone to get money out of them; you hard-sell them because you care about their eternity. This is one of the ways LRH took advantage of his Scientologists, many of whom were (and still are) big-hearted people with a genuine desire to help. With the concept of hard sell, LRH appealed to their better nature, taking advantage of their altruism to make more money for his business.
More on hard sell from the same policy letter:
“It is necessary in writing an ad or a flier to assume that the person is going to sign up right now. You tell him that he is going to sign up right now and he is going to take it right now…. One does not describe something, one commands something. [People] respond to direct commands in literature and ads.” — LRH
An interesting religious “tenet”, eh? I wonder what Jesus or Buddah or Moses or Allah said about writing advertisements… oh wait, they didn’t.
Hubbard apologists might try to argue that the policy letter from which I am quoting comes from the “admin tech” and had nothing to do with religious beliefs. Oh yeah?
“If one does not understand this, and if he doesn’t know that Dianetics and Scientology are the most valuable service on the planet, he will not be able to understand hard sell or be able to write good copy.
“So realize that you’re not offering cars or life insurance or jewelry or stocks or bonds or houses… You’re offering a service that’s going to rehabilitate the thetan.” — LRH
If you ever wonder how Scientologists can push so hard to sell services or solicit donations – how they can harangue fellow Scientologists to give past the point that they can reasonably afford – perhaps this will give you some insight.
Imagine what these same people could do if they invested their time, energy and enthusiasm in something that really did help people.
ML,
Caliwog
This week, I decided to start reading L. Ron Hubbard’s Data Series, a collection of policies that get into the innards of Scientology thinking, specifically how to handle, evaluate and deal with information (LRH preferred the word “data”).
Encompassing fifty-one policies and stretching out over nearly two hundred pages, the Data Series isn’t exactly a quick read, but it’s a good subject for protesters – especially the first policy, HCO PL 26 April 1970R, Data Series 1R, THE ANATOMY OF THOUGHT. You will find it in OEC Volume 1, which you can download from this MegaUpload link.
In case you don’t care to read it, I’ll sum it up for you:
Non-Scientologists are fucking idiots.
ANATOMY OF THOUGHT describes a Wog world where communication is taught improperly at schools, resulting in all sorts of bizarre behavior. LRH describes the plight of a typical business manager:
“Outside and inside his sphere of influence he is dealing with people who not only can’t think but have been taught carefully to reach irrational conclusions… He is dealing with people who in school were not only not taught to think but were often taught the impossibility of thinking or communicating.
“Here is an example: By opinion it is assumed there are 3000 pounds of potatoes available in a crop. An order is therefore written and payment ($300 at 10 cents a pound) is made for the crop. One sack of potatoes is delivered containing 100 pounds. That sack was the fact. Loss is 2900 pounds of potatoes.” — LRH
(If anyone can make sense of Hubbard’s example, please email and explain it to me. I’m still trying to figure it out.)
“The people with whom he is dealing can’t think to such a degree that they give him insane situations. Such people are not crazy. Their thinking is suppressed and distorted by modern “education.”
“You give this person a brief write-up of company policy. ‘Customers must be satisfied with our service,’ begins the write-up… On down the page is written, ‘A card is sent to advise the customer about the order.’ The employee says he understands all this and goes off apparently happy to carry out his duties. A few weeks later Smith and Co. write and say they will do no more business with you. You hastily try to find out WHY. If you’re lucky enough to track it down, you find the shipping clerk sent them a card saying, ‘Your order was received and we don’t intend to fill it.'” — LRH
This is the gist of the policy: People have been taught ass-backwards thinking, and as a result, they screw up everything. Nothing can get done… at least, not without LRH’s management methods.
Now, how any sane person can buy into this is beyond me. If the general populace were this stupid, how would the Empire State Building have been built? How would the stock market operate every day? How would we have sent a man to the moon? If everyone were this ruined by education, nothing would work. Everything would stop.
And yet Scientologists apparently believe it.
Lest you think I’m cherry-picking, I urge you to download OEC1 and read the policy yourself. LRH really does paint the “Wog world” as such a scary, imbecilic and insane place. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons that many people cling to LRH technology, even when they discover that the organized Church of Scientology is corrupt. (Yeah, yeah, I know – they stay because LRH tech works.)
This touches a nerve with me, because I have always insisted that Scientologists are not idiots. (And I honestly don’t think they are.) And yet what does LRH teach about wogs like me?
That we’re idiots.
Sigh.
More on the Data Series coming up.
ML,
Caliwog
Today I want to send you over to an (apparently Church-backed) anti-Marty site called Marty Rathbun Blog, specifically to a blog entry entitled Marty Rathbun turns his clients into religious haters.
Now, I’m sure some Indies will see this as proof that I am aligned with the Church; after all, I am forwarding an enemy line. That’s not it at all. No, I want you to read this blog entry and see how similar the language is to what you read on Marty Rathbun’s site.
Substitute the word “squirrel” with “OSA agent,” substitute “Marty Rathbun” with “David Miscavige,” and it’s largely the same rhetoric. Both sides are accusing the other of mis-applying Scientology with the end result of preventing people from achieving salvation. And both label all people who disagrees with LRH (like me) as “haters”.
Read the comments, and you’ll see very similar language there, too.
Why are they so similar? Because their viewpoint comes from the exact same place: The writings and teachings of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard.
How are we supposed to believe that Independent Scientology will be any different than what the Church does now?
Let’s say David Miscavige was somehow toppled and someone else took over, someone who believes strongly in LRH. I’m sure – at least, I would hope – that the pysical beatings would stop, as would the rampant SP declares, and maybe even the incessant demands for money. (But the latter wouldn’t stop for long. Remember, LRH’s rules of management by statistics demanded ever-increasing stats.)
Surely the changes would seem significant to those inside – but to those on the outside, things wouldn’t really change all that much. Those who begged to differ with the Church’s direction would still be branded as squirrels, and those who disagreed with LRH would still be labeled as “Scientology haters” or “religious bigots”.
And the practice of Scientology would still be just as dangerous.
There are people, both Scientologists and non-Scientologists, calling for a kinder, gentler Scientology. But to make that happen, one must partially reject the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard, something LRH himself said was a big no-no.
Will realy change come to Scientology? Can real change come to Scientology? Maybe – but it isn’t going to come from anyone who believes in “pure LRH tech.”
ML,
Caliwog
Source: Church of Scientology Creed
Source: HCO PL 7 Mar 1965 Issue III and HCO PL 23 Dec 1965
ML,
Caliwog
Posted in LRH in his own words
From time to time, I get accused of being an agent of the Office of Special Affairs, Scientology’s in-house secret police (and the former domain of Mike Rinder). I actually find the accusation rather amusing – I’m about as likely to join the Church of Scientology as David Duke is to join B’nai B’rith – but I often wonder why people (usually Scientologists) think that. I’ve tried to find out from Marty Rathbun and Mike Rinder, but I’ve never been able to get a straight answer. However, I did find something useful in a reply to this post on Marty’s blog. In this comment, a reader named RJ said:
Anyway the way to spot these guys is by the fact even though they’ll attack the subject and even malign Ron [Hubbard] they will avoid talking about Miscavige or worse try to give the impression that he was anointed personally by the Ol’man to assume the throne or that he is just applying policy.
In a follow-on comment, RJ said:
I’ve been watching these OSA Ass-Clowns since they first hit ARS [alt.religion.scientology, a Usenet newsgroup] and changed their tactics from theta spamming the entheta to playing the roles of critics in order to divert the [newsgroup] from any meaningful discussions about how Hades Dave and his evil minions were perverting Scientology and making a mockery of the subject.
RJ makes a very good point. I’ve written a great deal pointing out that many of the abuses attributed to David Miscavige originated with L. Ron Hubbard, and I’ve made a specific effort to disprove Marty when he blames LRH’s policies on David Miscavige. I’ve even posted a blog entry from Aaron Saxton suggesting that DM was LRH’s choice to take over the Church.
Now, I’m sure that the bulk of you see the point I am trying to make, but to a hard-core Scientologist, for whom anything negative about LRH or Scientology is “entheta,” it probably does look like I am trying to defend David Miscavige while putting down Marty Rathbun – both of which are goals of the official Church of Scientology.
And then there’s the fact that Independents believe that the Church is screwing up Scientology as part of a deliberate, evil attempt to ensure that mankind never becomes truly free. (Churchies believe the same thing about Independents.) From what RJ’s saying, it sounds like they see my posts about the ill-intentioned roots of Scientology as merely a distraction from the real issue, i.e. DM’s systematic perversion of LRH’s technology. As far as they’re concerned, I’m not saying anything meaningful, I’m merely creating a diversion. (This ignores the fact that, per LRH policy, by questioning and ridiculing Scientology doctrine, I’m committing a Scientology crime.)
Keep in mind that Hubbard taught his Scientologists that the world is made up of two-sided issues; you’re either with us or against us. He called it a two-terminal universe. There is no room for a third viewpoint, i.e. one that thinks both LRH and DM are full of crap. I’m sure not every Scientologist believes this, but from my experience, a lot of them do.
Now, I certainly don’t want to sound like I’m sticking up for David Miscavige. As far as I’m concerned, he’s an evil little troll. Still, the focus of this blog is LRH, and DM often takes a back seat (where he fits quite nicely. Ha! Ha!) I’ve been careful to point out that by blaming DM’s actions on LRH, I’m not giving the little guy a free pass, but I don’t think that’ll pass muster with the Scientologists. To wit, here’s more from RJ:
What’s unique about these more recent attacks is that they are even obliquely criticizing Miscavige by using the term “DMbot” (I can imagine the OSA op’s hand shakily typing this into the keyboard) in order to give themselves cred as not an OSA operation.
So I’m damned if I do and damned if I don’t.
My alternate theory, which I’ve posted on this blog (and attempted to post on Marty’s, although he’s censored it) is that Marty is trying to label me as OSA as a “dead agent” technique. Keep in mind that Marty views me as part of the problem (i.e. suppressing freedom by suppressing Scientology), and by saying I’m OSA, a group that most of his readers mistrust, Marty can torpedo my credibility; if they come to this site and read, they’ll be disinclined to listen from the get-go – that’s the dead agent technique. The Church does exactly the same thing to discredit Marty.
Marty might also be applying LRH’s positioning “tech,” which says that you could make something seem bad by positioning it with something that people didn’t like. LRH used psychiatry – a fail, since few people in the outside world share LRH’s hatred of the “psychs” – but using OSA is a win for Marty, as his followers are so upset with the Church.
I recently asked Marty how I could prove I was not OSA, and he asked me for my name, which I said I’d discuss in email. He never emailed, so he either doesn’t really believe I’m OSA or he doesn’t really care. I tend to assume the former, although I have to remind myself that Marty probably believes LRH about this being a two-terminal universe. That’s yet another thing Marty’s followers have in common with DM’s: They think anyone who talks crap about the tech (like me) must be working for the other side.
Incidentally, I’ve also been accused of being an OSA agent by anons, but I’m guessing that’s because I’m fairly fluent in Scientologese, and when I think I’m addressing a bonafide Scientologist, I’ll often use the vernacular. I get the feeling that most serious protesters, even if they don’t agree with my view, have figured out that I’m not OSA.
Anyway, I don’t know if any of this matters much; it’s not going to affect what I write, although I will be sure to continue making the point that by enforcing these policies, DM is no less guilty than LRH. Regardless… well, I just thought it was interesting. And now, if you read someone somewhere saying I’m an OSA agent, you’ll know why.
Oops, my secret direct phone line to David Miscavige is ringing. Gotta go!
ML,
Caliwog
Posted in Caliwog tech, What Scientologists believe
I’m sure most of us have seen this XenuTV video in which Mark Bunker was harangued by Scientologists asking “What are your crimes?” Crimes are a big deal for Scientologists – and chances are most of us are guilty of more Scientology crimes than we realize.
Scientology has its own “ethics” and “justice” system, as defined by founder L. Ron Hubbard. In the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics, compiled from LRH policy, Hubbard defined nearly two hundred and fifty separate acts that could be classified as either misdemeanors, crimes, or high crimes. Here is a small sampling.
MISDEMEANORS
Source: HCO PL 7 March 1965 Issue III, JUSTICE OFFENSES AND PENALTIES
Punishment for Crimes was a Committee of Evidence (known among Scientologists as a Comm Ev), essentially a Scientology trial, although the Comm Ev could not result in dismissal or cancellation of any Scientology certificates, classifications or awards. Scientologists who were employees of the Church could be subject to additional penalties, including a temporary 1/3rd reduction in pay.
CRIMES
Source: HCO PL 7 March 1965 Issue III, JUSTICE OFFENSES AND PENALTIES
Like Misdemeanors, Crimes were punishable by Comm Ev, but the committee could choose to suspend (but not cancel) a guilty party’s certificates, classifications or awards, and staff members could be demoted, and in extreme cases fired and turned over to the police.
HIGH CRIMES
In HCO PL 7 March 1965 Issue I, High Crimes are defined as “publically departing Scientology or committing Suppressive Acts.” Supressive Acts were spelled out in HCO PL 23 December 1965, ETHICS SUPRESSIVE ACTS – SUPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS – THE FAIR GAME LAW (yes, that Fair Game law). Among them:
As you can imagine, punishment for High Crimes is the most severe, and can include cancellation of all Scientology status, firing for staff members, and the dreaded Supressive Person declare. Getting Declared effectively cuts one off from family and friends in Scientology, because talking to a Supressive Person makes one a Potential Trouble Source (PTS), and being a PTS without reporting it is a Crime.
Nowadays, David Miscavige and his management team appear to be handing out Suppressive Person declares like candy on Halloween. In fact, DM’s obsession with ferreting out so-called “suppressive acts” is largely responsible for the Independent movement as we know it today. (Nice work, Slappy!) Nevertheless, if you understand what Scientologists consider crimes, you’ll understand the choice of wording used by both Independents and Church-goers when they talk about each other (and us protesters).
Obviously, the Scientology system of justice and crimes is one of the major sources of abuse. Luckily, because of the way the Comm Ev works, there is some wiggle room for more mercy in terms of punishment, although little flexibility vis-à-vis what constitutes a Supressive Act and how suppressive persons are to be treated. I’d love to hear Marty Rathbun, Mike Rinder, or any other Independent talk about how they would overhaul the justice system in a reformed Church of Scientology. I’ll even host it on this blog.
Anyway, now that you know all this, I have just one question: What are your crimes?
ML,
Caliwog
This weekend, Marty posted a blog entry entitled Blog Moderation Policy. First of all, let me say how glad I am that Marty has finally acknowleded that the “freedom of speech” he promotes is not entirely free. Let me also reiterate that his blog is his blog, and he is welcome to censor as he sees fit. I have a policy of letting anyone say anything, and as we saw this past week, such a policy has its drawbacks.
However (you knew that word was coming, right?) I do wish Marty was a little more up front about what he censors.
Jeff Hawkins or David Miscavige?
Marty says his moderation policy is modeled on Jeff Hawkins’ (outlined here). From Jeff:
“Remember that the spirit of this blog is respectful debate. Other posters may have different opinions than you do. That doesn’t make them evil or stupid. Try to learn from other points of view. See if you can see things from their point of view or understand why they feel that way. Don’t immediately attack someone if they’ve tromped on one of your sacred cows.” — Jeff Hawkins
A perfectly sensible policy – and I’m sure many of the folks who reads Marty’s blog (especially those who have been censored) will see the difference.
For all his protestations to the contrary, Marty often zaps comments that present a sensible yet negative viewpoint of LRH, as well as comments that call out Marty himself out for being misleading, dishonest, or simply incorrect. (And also that Marty’s followers frequently attack dissenters like a pack of wolves, and as long as their viewpoint agrees with his own, Marty will do nothing to stop them.)
I started a collection of comments that were Censored By Marty™, and several users have added their own. Check out that thread, and I think you’ll see quite a few comments that should have been allowed if Marty’s censorship policy really was similar to Jeff Hawkins’.
In truth, Marty’s censorship policy is pretty much the same as that of the Church of Scientology. Both Marty and Miscavige censor “entheta” as defined by L. Ron Hubbard.
LRH: Entheta and what to do about it
“ENTHETA means enturbulated theta (thought or life); especially refers to communications, which, based on lies and confusions, are slanderous, choppy or destructive in an attempt to overwhelm or suppress a person or group.” — LRH, Technical Dictionary of Dianetics and Scientology
LRH wrote a great deal about how to handle entheta:
“AN ENTHETA LETTER = is a letter containing insult, discourtesy, chop or nastiness about an org, its personnel, Scientology or the principal figures in Scientology…. when you try to help some people – or help them – they react like mad dogs… Such people are Suppressives or belong to Suppressive Groups…. Rather than go to the trouble of issuing a Suppressive Person order or even investigating we assign writers of choppy letters to the DEAD FILE. We just don’t comm.[unicate] with the entheta line… All choppy, nattery, rumour-mongery letters dead end in the DEAD FILE.” — LRH, HCO PL 7 June 1965, ENTHETA LETTERS AND THE DEAD FILE, HANDLING OF
“Complaints, upsets, snarls, discourtesy, are not answered by the Letter Reg but when received by Letter Reg are stamped “Entheta” and with no answer to the writer are sent to [Central files and from there to the] Justice Section.” — LRH, HCO PL 6 April 1965, LETTER REG HAT (emphasis in original)
“We long ago discovered in Dianetics that what we validate comes true. Thus, if we continue to process or connect with or continue to harbor entheta, we discover that entheta becomes quite live. But if we decide to process on the theta line, validating such things as affinity, reality and good communication, we make short work out of the case.” — LRH, Accent on Ability, Foundation Bulletins Vol. 1 No. 3
In other words, accentuate the positive and eliminate the negative, quietly and without sorrow. This makes for great PR for Scientology, but it does not lead to respectful debate. Sadly, LRH did not realize that his censor-entheta policy might piss off a person enough that he starts his own blog which becomes a pain in everyone’s ass. (That would be me.)
Entheta or ego?
It should also be noted that the organized Church of Scientology goes to great lengths to censor information that is critical of David Miscavige. Marty censors comments that are critical of him. So far as I know, neither is in keeping with LRH policy.
Here’s the bottom line: Censorship usually occurs because the people doing the censoring have something to hide. That’s why censorship was practiced by Nazi Germany, that’s why it was practiced by Soviet Russia, and that’s why it’s practiced by the Church of Scientology.
LRH knew his subject wouldn’t stand up to scrutiny, which is why he put so many controls on what could be said, who could be admitted, and who could be ignored.
Marty, you’re talking about creating a kinder, gentler Scientology. If that’s the case, why not stop the censorship altogether? Why not allow what you say to be scrutinized by all? Why not allow your followers to be exposed to entheta – don’t you think they are smart enough to sniff out the truth for themselves?
Or are you afraid they are smart enough to sniff out the truth for themselves?
Moderation, Caliwog-style
I’ve been thinking about my own no-censorship policy, and after reading Marty’s blog entry, I’ve come to a decision: I’m not changing it.
I’m not in this for the glory. I’m not trying to start a movement or portray a positive public image. I’m just an anonymous guy who thinks that Scientology is harmful. I post facts that are verifiable and opinions that can stand up to scrutiny or criticism.
I realize that my posts and the comments that follow them may stir up some emotions, and not all of them are positive – but we’re adults and we can handle it. I’ll ask you to be respectful, but I won’t tell you what you can and cannot say. That may get some people angry and it may earn me some razzing on the forums, but I can live with that. So long as we get out the truth about Scientology – and about those who would lie and censor to cover up its true nature – we are doing good work.
REMINDER: If you’ve been CENSORED BY MARTY™, please post your censored comment here!
ML,
Caliwog
Posted in Censorship, Marty Rathbun
You may have heard of Knowledge Reports, or KRs. Scientologists were encouraged to tell on other Scientologists for bad behavior, including “loafing” and not adhering to Scientology policy. Actually, “encouraged” isn’t the right word – they had to write knowledge reports or they would get in trouble. From the book Introduction to Scientology Ethics:
Anyone who knew of a loafing or destructive or off-policy or out-ethics action and WHO DID NOT FILE A KNOWLEDGE REPORT becomes an ACCESSORY in any justice action taken thereafter… Any person who knew of an outness or crime and failed to report it… receives the same penalty…as the actual offender.” — LRH [emphasis in original]
But Knowledge Reports aren’t the only way to tattle on your fellow Scientologists. For Scientology staff members, LRH outlined no fewer than twenty additional reports that they were required to make. They were:
As with Knowledge Reports, Hubbard dictated that failure to file any of these reports at the proper time was grounds for discipline.
While the twenty reports outlined above were intended for Scientology organizations (i.e. the Sea Org, storefront churches, and organizations that use LRH’s “Administrative Technology”), Knowledge Reports were intended for all Scientologists.
To be fair, KRs have helped the protest movement; we’ve seen some great information come from current and former Scientologists in the form of KRs. That said, imagine living in a system where you were expected to write up reports on people – friends, employees, spouses, parents, children – because failure to do so could land you in hot water. How would that affect your relationships? Your view of people? Your outlook on life?
ML,
Caliwog
Posted in LRH Tech
Caliwog's Blog 